And I agree with brother Clark, here:
...the results have nothing definitive to say about QM interpretations.... Except you'll find people who disagree with that. The whole many earth's interpretation was developed to address that issue. Reality is a metaphysical characteristic, not a scientific one.
— T Clark

As to our living in a quantum universe, I buy that. But I accept that most of the effects are too small or too unlikely to matter much. Not impossible, just unlikely.

If you care to lay out your own interpretation, "compelling analogy," I'm a reader! — tim wood

I will lay it out soon, because it's one of the most fascinating things I've ever tried to understand. For now let me just reiterate this:

The point of Bell's Theorem and the experiments that test it is to clarify if it's at all possible if we live in a world that's describable classically. You laid out some of the statistics that go into Bells Theorem, but in your first few posts I think you left out an explanation of why those statistics matter. That's what I'm focusing on here.

They matter because they prove with reasonable certainty that we live in a world that does not match up with classical assumptions.

T Clark said many people disagree with that and he brought up "many earths", which I assume to be many worlds - please correct me if I'm wrong. Many worlds is quantum mechanics. Many worlds is NOT classical. Many worlds also believes in indeterminate answers to measurement questions prior to measurement.

The classical idea is that any measurable property of a particle - momentum or position or spin - has a definite, objectively true answer even when you're not measuring it. If you send off a photon at t=1 and measure it at t=100, in classical mechanics that particle still has a singular, definite and true answer for any question you could ask of it at t=2 - 99. Just because you don't know the answer in classical mechanics doesn't mean there isn't one - there always is.

The inequalities in Bells Theorem are there to help us test if our universe is one where it's in fact true that we might live in a classical universe where those questions have singular, definite answers. Many Worlds does not involve singular definite answers to quantum questions, and the key to why is in the name, "many". Many Worlds takes the idea of superposition super-literally, and in many worlds any answer to a quantum question prior to measurement doesn't have a singular definite answer, it has MANY answers.

I'm going to try to take the time later to go over my analogy about why bells theorem says these questions can't have classical answers. I honestly love this topic so much. But I'll leave you with that for now.

Do you mean many worlds? Many worlds doesn't disagree with it at all. Many worlds actually very naturally fits in with my description (I should also clarify that a world, in Many Worlds, doesn't mean a planet like earth. )

well, if you're not interested in my long explanation of the implications of the results then, in short, what bells theorem proves is that we do in fact live in a quantum universe and not a classical one. Quantum measurements are indeterminate prior to measurement, genuinely and actually indeterminate rather than just a question that we don't yet have the answer to. Ontologically indeterminate, if you will. Bells theorem settles that question pretty cleanly, which is why it's so valuable in the history of quantum mechanics.

I can go into why at length but it doesn't look like you're asking for that.

Almost all experts are going to agree that you can't use qm to send information faster than light. Some people don't care about interpretations at all, they just care about qm as a tool to get predictions out of. Other people take the question of interpretations very seriously.

The implications of those results are a bit harder to get a grip on - What do they say about realism and locality? — T Clark

Sure, I thought the article maybe did a good job at explaining that but perhaps it's not as explicit as it could be. I'm only a layman, but I do have what I consider to be a relatively compelling analogy, if you're interested.

if you've tried and struggled to understand it, I definitely recommend at least one go of the above article. It took some effort but it really clarified everything for me.

I've found this article to be the most straight forwardly comprehensible explanation of bells theorem

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AnHJX42C6r6deohTG/bell-s-theorem-no-epr-reality#:~:text=%22If%2C%20without%20in%20any%20way,corresponding%20to%20this%20physical%20quantity.%22

It took me a few reads and quite a lot of solitary thought to fully grok what this explanation is saying, but I can say with relative confidence that I understand Bells Theorem to some reasonable degree. I understand both what it is saying and why it is saying it.

So you have a mathematical expression of a limit, and a mathematical description that accurately predicts the actual outcomes, and they're inconsistent with each other. And alas, there's no more than that to it. — tim wood

I will say I think you've done bells theorem a little bit of a disservice here. The fundamental proof can maybe loosely be summed up like what you've said here, but exactly what it proves is far more interesting than this gives it credit, in my view. You've said the dry bit but left out why anybody cares - and the real reason is truly fascinating.

Trump's win, and subsequent loss, are actually pretty good evidence that American votes are in fact real, I never thought about it that way.

Is Biden against NATO? No.
Is Biden against free market? No.
Is Baden in favour of more State intervention? No.

That's how a real communist should act, — javi2541997

This is a very confusing sequence of words

yes, he is a compulsive liar.

exactly. It's ridiculous to hear "will of the voters" in this circumstance - Trump is being indicted because he wanted to take control against the will of the voters. Donald Trump's existence is itself a threat to the possibility that the will of the voters will be enacted in the future.

The judge and jury should presume innocence until proven guilty. Not prosecutors and not the general public.

Imagine committing some pretty heinous crimes but you've convinced half the population that if you were to be tried for your crimes, that's proof that those who would try you are evil authoritarians.

"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters" - the man certainly knows his target audience

What I've found is that conservative conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy only as long as there's no evidence of the conspiracy. As soon as real compelling evidence arises, they reject the conspiracy and find a new one.

They're like the hipsters of the conspiracy world. They only like stuff before it's cool.

Okay well the only way to investigate that is by looking at specific changes rather than general questions about change.

it's a very general question, it's probably better handled on a specific level - why did they want to change this specific election law to this?

But, just as an example, if the existing law was crap for some reason, then changing it to be less crap might be good. Why change anything ever? Because some things can be improved. Maybe an election law was making it unreasonably hard for some people to vote, or a new law was going to make voting much more accessible to more people. Changes can be good. Surely you can think of changes that are good in general, not all changes make things worse in the world right?

The generic question "why change an election law?" has the generic answer "to make it better".

perhaps you can go into detail?

A voting change favouring one party doesn't mean the voting change is bad. If a neighborhood of old conservatives couldn't vote one year because there was no easily accessible place to vote for them, and someone changes election laws to make sure they have a place to vote, is it bad just because they're mostly conservatives?

I don't think a change benefitting one party is in itself proof that that change is bad or unethical. Can you understand why I think that?

easy, if the changes to election laws were designed to allow more people to vote...

In what world is blocking changes automatically good and not bad? Sometimes changes are good

that sounds less like someone cares about election integrity and more like someone is upset they lost. All that happened AFTER he lost, right? Not before?

so how did he fight for it then?

if he fought for election integrity, then why is he saying that the only presidential election he was ever president during is also the presidential election with the least integrity in the history of the us?

It's not adding up. Surely someone as competent and concerned about election integrity at trump could have done something to ensure that there was election integrity...

Addition is a specific algorithm. Quaddition is another specific algorithm. If someone's telling me that I'm wrong about what algorithm I'm using inside my head, and the algorithm they think I'm using is some arbitrarily complicated thing I've never even heard of before, they better have a good argument.

seems like you're just ignoring the whole section where I argue that addition generally solves the sorts of problems I use it to solve, even for numbers > 57. Addition is an operation that generally solves all such problems, regardless of if they're above or below 57.

If someone is going to tell me what's in my mind - and telling me I've been using quaddition instead of addition is doing just that - then they should have a good reason for believing that. I have a good argument for why I've been using addition. What's the counter ?

Yes, but in the thought experiment, you've never done that. The idea is that in real life there's a number you've never added up to before. For the sake of presenting the challenge, we just pick 57. — frank

Ah right. Well, in that case, if I'm disregarding the obvious silliness of the whole thing, then I would think about the sorts of problems I was trying to solve with addition, and think about it those sorts of problems would be solvable by quaddition.

Perhaps I used addition once to count how many apples me and my brother picked together. I picked 5 and he picked 10, so together we picked 15. I'd then think, would quaddition give me the correct answer? In this case, yes, but in the case where one of us picked 57 or more? No, clearly not.

Quaddition doesn't generally solve the sorts of problems I've thus far been using addition to solve, so no, I haven't been doing that.

Following our failure to deliver a fact that distinguishes our historic use of "plus" vs "quus," — frank

Surely the only thing you need to prove historically that you weren't quadding is to show any instance where you've added two numbers > 57, right?

dude has already intimidated witnesses. I really hope they hold him to that agreement.

"I i think therefore I am" seems like the only justifiable 100% certainty to me. The best you can get after that, I would think, it's 99.9 followed by some amount of 9s percent certainty - there's always some doubt for any other statement I think.

I think they're both corrupt, as in they both have corruption in the ranks, but I don't believe the corruption is the same. I don't believe the scale of it is the same.

It seems to me like you can buy the occasional democrat representative. It seems to me that republican representatives exist to be bought.

Is anyone else just completely amazed that a man could try to brazenly steal an election and still a third of America wants to vote for him again?

I'm not entirely sure I know how to process the extreme fucked-upness of this situation. It's absurd, is surreal. There's no way anybody who values democracy could consider him getting power again would be an acceptable outcome.

America's fucked.

I don't think a word of that responded to the question I asked.

How much of a crime would it seem like if Biden loses the election and does all the same shit Trump did though?

I don't think you should let the "victimless" angle go unchecked. It's only arguably victimless because he failed. "Attempted murder" is a crime still, even if no one got hurt.

He failed to make a victim (arguably), should his failure count in his favour?

He refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power, and then it turned out he wasn't interested in a peaceful transition of power. The dude basically announced his intentions well ahead of time. If someone tells me they're gonna stab someone, and then I see them later with a bloody knife in their hands, why wouldn't I believe them?

I'm not a lawyer, I'm not here to prove to you he was guilty. I can't provide anything, there are people whose job it is to do that and that's exactly what they're going to do. I eagerly await the trial and, if it's made public, the evidence that comes out of it.

yes, of course I agree. I don't personally need a confession to find a person beyond all reasonable doubt guilty of a crime involving intent. The same can't be said for every poster

joking or not, it's relevant to the argument NOS is making. If NOS thinks that trump can't be guilty here because you can't prove intent without a confession, then that means a lot of crimes that involve intent are also unprovable without a confession.

If I barge into someone's home and shoot them in the head, then without a confession you can't prove that I didn't intend to shoot approximately in their direction and I just accidentally shot them in the head.

he's specifically talking about crimes where intent matters, I guess.

Although, interestingly enough, intent DOES matter in a murder charge. If a lawyer can't prove intent for a murder charge, they can opt to pursue manslaughter charges instead.

So instead of saying declared innocent, he might claim that you can't convict someone of murder without a confession, only manslaughter .

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/steve-bannon-said-trump-going-say-election-stolen-jan-6-committee-1234610621/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/14/steve-bannon-audio-trump-declare-victory

https://youtu.be/OxNoUnxN_cs

superdeterminism as an explanation for "spooky action at a distance" is intensely unsatisfying.

Bells theorem proves that local hidden variables can't be an explanation for certain quantum events. Superdeterminism comes in and says, hold up, I've found a loop hole - what if the universe does operate by local hidden variables, BUT the universe has conspired to trick us into thinking it doesn't work that way?

The problem with the superdeterminism approach is that it can adequately fit with ANY possible observations. No matter what you observe, a superdeterminist can come out and say, Welp, you observed that because the universe conspired to make sure you observed that.

It basically undermines the entire idea that we can use observations to inform our ideas about how the universe works.

I thought he was snarkily saying the opposite lol.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4139548-pence-confirms-notes-trump-overturning-election/

Very interesting from pence here. I really hope that Donald trump comes to regret throwing him under the bus.